PALESTINIAN NGOs REFUSE TO SIGN ANTI-TERROR CLAUSE

[drdon326]

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/september/09_30_2.html

Palestinian non-government organizations have refused to sign a U.S.-sponsored commitment that they will not transfer funds to individuals or groups that engage in attacks against Israeli civilians.

Palestinian sources said social welfare groups within the Palestinian Authority as well as independent NGOs have organized a campaign against signing a so-called anti-terror clause. The sources said the United States has demanded that Palestinian social welfare groups sign a commitment that they will not transfer money to those deemed terrorists.

So far, the sources said, about 30 NGOs have declared that they would not sign the anti-terror commitment. Many of the groups obtain funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development and American philanthropies.

Earlier this month, representatives of 29 NGOs in the area of the West Bank city of Bethlehem met and issued a statement that they would not cooperate with a U.S. AID demand not to transfer funding to any individual or group deemed terrorist. The meeting was attended by PA security and intelligence officials. The Interior Ministry regulates NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

.................................................................

The U.S. Agency for International Development and American philanthropies gives shitloads of money but they refuse not to
support terrorism with the money.

All right everyone, lets hear the outrage !!

[Jim Sagle]

1. I'm sure we'll be deluged.

[drdon326]

2. Jimbo.....

it should start any minute now....i can feel it.

[J B]

3. Outsourcing deciding who's terrorist to the US puts them...

...in a lousy position in that they become hostages to US foreign policy.

So they'd probably rather the US stop humanitarian aid than they stop distributing all humanitarian aid to any group the US decides isn't in the US' political interests to support, regardless of whether an impartial 3rd party would deem them terrorist or not.

Of course the US is under no obligation to support this stance...

[Darranar]

4. Oh, great...

This is simply INEXCUSABLE. Giving money to terrorists doen't help the Palestinians, it hurts them.

[drdon326]

5. OMG !!!!

Darranar....I take back........SOME... of the things I thought
about you.lol

[Forkboy]

6. You'd think that

these people would be out of feet to shoot themselves in by this point.

[vierundzwanzig]

7. When will the U.S. stop funding

state-sponsored Israeli terrorism?

Who decides here who is a terrorist?

I think the U.S. has already answered the question why these groups won't sign.

Israel accuses everybody and anybody that doesn't comply with its extortionist policies of being a terrorist. These NGOs do not want to play ball with flagrant demagogues.

It's not about not giving money to terrorists. It's about the classification.

[Darranar]

8. Oh, give me a break...

Name an organization on this list that ISN'T a terrorist organzization and I'll understand your complaint. The fact is that they all are, and that is simply an excuse for supporting terrorists.

[LevChernyi]

9. what list?

[Darranar]

10. Sorry...

I just re-read the article and realized that there was no official list. Is it really this vague? if it is, then I can understand - though I disagree with - the decision of the charities.

[Proudlib]

11. Nice Charities

Rather than spend money on making life better for their fellow Palestinians, these organizations would rather try to help fund murdering Israelis which only results in making life worse for everyone.

Interesting priorities, to say the least.

I'm waiting for someone to blame Israel for the actions of these organizations.

[Darranar]

12. I agree with you, Proudlib...

The actions of these organizations are inexcusable and outrageous.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. So where's the list?

I want to see it and read a bit more about this than from one news source that didn't even publish the full article before I decide if actions are inexcusable and outrageous....

Violet...

[Darranar]

14. To me, it doesn't matter all that much...

If an organization that doesn't target innocent Israelis recieves money from them, but is then listed (on whatever list they have) then they can make the claim that it isn't a terrorist organization. I assume they can take such a claim to court.

Anyway, the organizations where there is a doubt (whether they target innocent Israelis or not) are generally so corrupt and brutal that I really don't care that much if they're listed along with the rest of the terrorist organizations.

[Jim Sagle]

15. You've apparently given this subject great study.

I admire that (no sarcasm whatever) even though for the most part I can't agree with your conclusions.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. It sure matters to me...

I don't understand why anyone would jump to conclusions about *why* NGOs refused to sign a document without even attempting to find out what the clause they were agreeing to specifically said or whether the list is a legitimate one that would include groups like Hamas, but also includes individuals, family members of Hamas members, that sort of thing. I doubt very much that every NGO went 'fuck you! We WANT to directly provide terrorists with funds!' I kind of suspect there may be something else totally unpalatable in the clause that would maybe make their work as NGOs impossible to carry out. That's why I'd like to see the clause itself and the actual statement made by the NGOs before I make up my mind. Have you seen either of them? I did a quick google and couldn't find anything...

Violet....

[Fight_n_back]

17. Now if you just

gave that same consideration to both sides...

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I already do...

but thanks for playing...


Violet...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Are you planning on actually discussing the topic of the thread?

Or just sitting round focusing on the posters rather than their posts?
Feel free to join me anytime, Yang...

Violet...

[Darranar]

32. It doesn't matter why they didn't do it...

the fact is that they didn't. They refused to not give money to terrorist organizations that target innocent people, and that is inexcusable.

No one in the Bush Administration has ever labeled someone or something a terrorist that I would donate to, or any moral person should donate to. Yes, there have been lies, but how many people would donate money to Saddam Hussein and his regime? If they had, then my opinion would be different, but they haven't.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It sure does matter...

How do you know who or what's on this list if you haven't even seen this particular list? All I've been able to find out about this particular list is that it doesn't just include groups, but individuals, and given Israels propensity to label everything that breathes a terrorist, and to punish the family members of those who are accused of being in groups like Hamas, how do you know that it's not people like the families that aren't included on the list? I don't know because I haven't seen the clause the NGOs were objecting to nor the list, so there might be something there and there might not...

Assuming that because NGOs refused to sign this document is them refusing not to give money to terrorist organisations, and therefore supporting them is the same as someone saying that the US refused to vote for a UN resolution that condemned Hamas, so therefore they're refusing not to condemn Hamas. Of course we know the real reason why was because the resolution that contained that condemnation was in a resolution that condemned Israels plan to expel Arafat, and of course the US couldn't vote for a resolution opposing a member of the UN expelling or killing an elected civil leader. But we'd have to have read the resolution and a bit more than one not even complete news story to have worked that out. And Bush's 'if you're not with us, you're against us' line about the War on Terror makes me wary of things like this when it involves US govt departments and what's in their long-arse documents...


Violet...

[Darranar]

47. Okay...

but if there was no official list, is it not true that the only factor was whether they targeted innocent civilians or not? Is there soemthing else here that i'm missing?

[laura888]

45. agree with Violet

let's get the details before any judgements are made

[Resistance]

19. thanks for posting

yet another Little Green Footballs headline. The fact that it's a racist, right-wing blog doesn't prevent you from re-posting all their material at DU does it?

Hey you missed one: Islam Spreading in the UK

Oh my gosh! Islam is spreading! Better raise the terror alerts, right doc?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

20. but, more interesting is this one...

Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.

On Aug. 20, 2001, Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a man who would soon be named a minister of the Saudi government and put in charge of its two holy mosques, arrived in the United States to meet with some of this country's most influential fundamentalist Sunni Muslim leaders.
His journey here was to include meetings and contacts with officials of several Saudi-sponsored charities that have since been accused of links to terrorist groups, including the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, which was shut down by U.S. authorities last year.
He met with the creators of Islamic Web sites that U.S. authorities contend promote the views of radical Saudi clerics tied to Osama bin Laden. And among the imams on his travel schedule was a leader of a small religious center tucked into a nondescript office building in Falls Church, the same site used for a time by the spiritual leader of a group of area men indicted in June as suspected jihadists.
On the night of Sept. 10, 2001, Hussayen stayed at a Herndon hotel that also housed three of the Saudi hijackers who would slam an aircraft into the Pentagon the next day, though there is no evidence that he had contact with them.

...

But his travels form a road map to some of the religious and charitable groups in America dedicated to the spread of Wahhabism, the rigid and puritanical strain of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia. In recent months, authorities have begun to focus on the role of radical Wahhabi clerics and organizations, including some that Hussayen came to see here, in exhorting followers to violence.
Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam.

...

Those sources said Hussayen was also scheduled to visit officials at the Muslim World League, a multibillion-dollar, Saudi-based umbrella charity organization whose U.S. offices are at 360 S. Washington St. Muslim World League officials declined to be interviewed.
The Muslim World League office was raided in March 2002 by Treasury Department agents as part of an investigation into a Herndon-based network of Saudi-financed charities and companies suspected of ties to al Qaeda, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Muslim World League and its offshoot, the International Islamic Relief Organization, have been the subjects of terrorism financing inquiries in the United States and several other countries.
Hussayen also was scheduled to meet with officials of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), another huge Saudi-based charity headed by the Saudi government's minister of Islamic affairs, according to sources knowledgeable about the investigation. WAMY's U.S. office on Leesburg Pike in Falls Church was incorporated by bin Laden's nephew, Abdullah bin Laden, and operated by him until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush administration officials have pressed the Saudi government to clamp down on the Muslim World League and WAMY, according to federal law enforcement sources, and both are defendants in civil lawsuits filed by families of the victims of the attacks.

...

The FBI has examined hotel videotapes and interviewed employees, but has found no indication that Hussayen and the hijackers interacted, law enforcement sources said. After the attack, an FBI agent interviewed hotel guests, including Hussayen and his wife, but did not get very far.
According to court testimony from FBI agent Gneckow earlier this year, the interview was cut short when Hussayen "feigned a seizure, prompting the agents to take him to a hospital, where the attending physicians found nothing wrong with him."
The agent recommended that Hussayen "should not be allowed to leave until a follow-up interview could occur," Gneckow told the court. But "her recommendation, for whatever reason, was not complied with," he said.
On Sept. 19, the day air travel resumed, Hussayen and his wife took off for Saudi Arabia.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31402-2003Oct1

[calkooni]

21. The problem is purely with the classification

Who is a terrorist and who isn't.

I personally find the classification on who is a terrorist along the same lines of the label rejected by the US: "Zionism is Racism" ... (which we'd all agree is Totally Unacceptable label)


So let's dig into that clause and determine who exactly the terrorists are? Will the terrorist "list" be mutual agreed by all parties? Or do we just let Israel decide?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

25. the article I posted...

didn't mention Israel...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

29. We Have Barely Scraped the Surface...

...

RATHER THAN LOOK at terrorism from a political or religious standpoint, Napoleoni approaches it as an economist, which she was before becoming a writer. By tracing the dollars behind the terror networks, she estimates that the “new economy of terrorism” has now grown to $1.5 trillion or more in both illegal and legal transactions. The business of terrorism is now so large and the financial networks supporting it so complex, she says, that if the flow of money to terrorists were suddenly cut off, the drop in liquidity could have a serious impact on the Western economies.

...

The last stage in the 1990s was when terrorism, Islamic terror, went trans-national and terror groups could now operate and raise money in more than one country. This is when the terror economy became global and when they linked up to crime globally. Before that, it was all localized.

...

I think the White House undervalued the importance and the phenomenon of the emerging Islamic bourgeoisie, which is putting pressure for a regime change in Saudi Arabia to get rid of the House of Saud. U.S. administration officials thought that Islamic terror was an isolated phenomenon that took place rarely and outside the United States; therefore, they didn’t let the FBI investigate the Islamic jihad.

...

I think the U.S. government has done very, very little so far. They are not really going to the source of the problem and this is partly because they are still very ignorant about the source. They did not intervene with Saudi Arabia where the bulk of the Islamic banks are located.
Last week, Bush said the Saudis are doing great things. What? They stopped collections in shopping malls. How much do you think they raised there? There are 241 charities in Saudi Arabia. They have closed six of them. Most of the charities that get the most money are headed by members of the royal family or members of the ruling elite.

...

I think to be honest, the terrorists are now winning. Or, at least, if we carry on like this, they may win. We cannot continue to exercise this hegemonic power over these regions of the Middle East. If we don’t change, we should try to find peaceful ways to solve this problem, especially since it is linked to our economy. And we need to stop supporting regimes that are clearly oligarchies and oppressive and unpopular. I would like to see changes in relationships with oligarchic regimes in Muslim world. We talk about bringing democracy to Iraq, but what about Saudi Arabia? It is extremely hypocritical. We should be asking why we went into Iraq. But you end up paying attention only when something tragic happens. This is why we are in this serious mess.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974049.asp?0cv=CB30

[Fight_n_back]

44. Posting from a racist site like

MSNBC...shame on you. ;)

[drdon326]

22. LOL

Yeah...we know your favorites....

jihad-unspun
electronic intafada

and everyones favorite...

that senior GEOLOGY student.

[bluesoul]

23. Hmmm

So you prefer Neo-con, extreme rightwing sources and consider them as credible and objective. One wonders...

Especially considering today the misuse of the term terrorist. Were those that fought against the Nazis on the occupied territories in Europe terrorists?

[drdon326]

24. No....

i prefer credible sources as opposed to reactionary,
fundamentalist jihaofascist sites.

[bluesoul]

26. Hmm

Jihaofascist sites? Now what is that supposed to mean? Every Arabic/Muslim site?

[Resistance]

30. at least the doc is honest

he admits he considers right-wing racist sources credible. The question for me is: why does DU find this tolerable?

[drdon326]

34. Ahhhh....putting words in my mouth.

i dont post from rw sites.....as opposed to
reactionary fascist sites like JIHAD-UNSPUN
and EI that YOUVE POSTED FROM??

HEY, Hows that senior geology student you are so
fond of??

[Darranar]

35. The most you can accuse EI of is bias...

It isn't a fascist site. I don't know much about Jihad-Unspun.

As for LGF... It is a right-wing piece of junk.

[Aidoneus]

38. no sense of irony..

none whatsoever.. do you even know what that word means?

[Fight_n_back]

28. How many

incidents of partisan resistence can you find where the targets were children and other non combatants?

How many weddings in Berlin were targetted by French or Yugoslavian resistence fighters?

I'll take your answer off the air...

[bluesoul]

31. hmmm

I guess the Palestinian children and other civilians killed by the IDF don't mather that much too you... But then the most moral army in the world doesn't target them, that couldn't happen

[Fight_n_back]

36. What are you talking about?

You made a comparison of Hamas and other groups to resistance fighters in WWII. I asked you the reasonable question: How many babies were shot, on purpose, by resistence fighters in WWII?

Your response is that someone that wasn't even brought up in the discussion did something else which does nothing to answer the direct question placed to you.

There is nothing in the question posed that could possibly lead you to believe that I don't care about the deaths of children. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your own comparison which rendered you incapable of a reasoned response.

[Darranar]

37. I think he/she was refering to...

groups which targeted IDF soldiers but were labeled terrorists. I could be wrong, though.

[bluesoul]

39. note

Exactly. Resistance on the occupied territories, not civilians killed in Israel. I have never supported ANY terrorist acts, be it Palestinians suicide bombers or Israeli state terrorism against them..

[Fight_n_back]

40. Then why the hubbub?

You could have esily pointed that out in your initial post rather than go on an attack that lacked merit.

You should also look into the definition of terrorism. Words have meaning for a reason.

[bluesoul]

41. Terrorism

Oh I know exactly what STATE terrorism is. Terrorism is not only suicide attacks or flying planes into buildings. It can be (and has been) achieved in many different ways....

[Fight_n_back]

43. It doesn't seem like you do know

it seems that you are very hung up on the definition of terrorism as being "violence that bluesoul dislikes".

People in uniforms that braodcast their intentions and attack military targets are not terrorists. That does not mean that the attacks are moral or pure or even effective. It just meanst that it isn't terrorism.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. John Kerry was not. It doesn't mean that I agree with Vietnam because I don't categorize John Kerry as a terrorist.

[bluesoul]

48. State terrorism Mr Yang

It seems to me that you are unaware of certain qualifications as far as what certain countries do and their actions. Do you know what was (even!) the US found guilty of before the UN for it's actions in Panama? The word has 9 words. You guess it. Sorry to inform you, but it's not only the Muslims doing it, far from it...

[Darranar]

33. Can you provide information that adds to this article?

Or that contests it?